TB9-15453

TB9-15453

The RAD found the RPD erred in its IFA analysis and in rejecting the genuineness of the floral arrangement; the admitted video corroborates that the Appellants were declared a military objective by Clan Úsuga and, on the balance of probabilities, the Principal Appellant and his spouse face a personalized risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment throughout Colombia and cannot safely relocate; accordingly the appeal is allowed in part and the Principal Appellant and his spouse are persons in need of protection under s.97(1)(b) IRPA; the minors' appeals are dismissed as they are US citizens.

Citation
TB9-15453
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: Principal Appellant and spouse found persons in need of protection pursuant to s.97(1)(b) IRPA; appeals regarding minor children dismissed.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Military Objective Threats
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence State Protection Credibility Assessment Military Objective Threats

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Child

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Principal Appellant and his spouse can avail themselves of an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Colombia
  2. 2 Whether Item 9 (security video footage) is admissible as new evidence on appeal under s.110(4) IRPA and RAD Rule 29
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in its assessment of the genuineness of the funeral floral arrangement and attached threat note

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred in its IFA analysis and in rejecting the genuineness of the floral arrangement; the admitted video corroborates that the Appellants were declared a military objective by Clan Úsuga and, on the balance of probabilities, the Principal Appellant and his spouse face a personalized risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment throughout Colombia and cannot safely relocate; accordingly the appeal is allowed in part and the Principal Appellant and his spouse are persons in need of protection under s.97(1)(b) IRPA; the minors' appeals are dismissed as they are US citizens.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: Principal Appellant and spouse found persons in need of protection pursuant to s.97(1)(b) IRPA; appeals regarding minor children dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part; Principal Appellant and his spouse declared persons in need of protection pursuant to s.97(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; appeals by the minor children dismissed as they are United States citizens.